Steve/Tony:

I believe your treading on my constitutional rights, 1st Amendment. Never
the less, I cower to your demands. If you locate other items to be deleted,
don't hesitate notifying me. I allege you never received a letter from Jim
Crumlish. Hence, you can't produce it. Actually, I don't need it for the
reason his letters are not addressing the pesticide issue.
I also suggest you delve into the Federal Laws that have been violated. Tony
has a blown up picture of the skull and crossbone sign that is a stand out
violation.
I believe your demands have been satisfied.
Bill Macdowell

DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed,
ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or
to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged
reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and
slander are defamation.

Although defamation is primarily governed by state law, the First Amendment
safeguards for freedom of speech and press limit state law. New York Times
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964); Masson, 501 U.S. at 510. The scope of
constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of
public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion.
Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (rejecting categorical exemption of all statements
in form of opinion; statement that may imply verifiable assertion of fact is
actionable).

To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine
the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at
the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the
entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of
the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the
statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used
and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular
situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is
sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. See
Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.'94) (applying
three-factor test as the starting point for analysis); Unelko Corp. v.
Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.'90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961
(1991).

'[T]he First Amendment requires that the courts allow latitude for
interpretation.' Partington, 56 F.3d at 1154 (quoting Moldea v. New York
Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 202 (1994)).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Lewis" <PLewis@pm-law.com>
To: <blmacd@comcast.net>
Cc: "Stephen Page" <SPage@pm-law.com>; "Erica Lester" <elester@pm-law.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:24 PM
Subject: Mariner Sands. Letter from Stephen C. Page.


Mr. MacDowell,

Please find attached a letter from Stephen C. Page dated today regarding
the above subject matter.

Thank you.
Pamela Lewis



-----Original Message-----
From: administrator@pm-law.com [mailto:administrator@pm-law.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:11 PM
To: Pam Lewis
Subject: Scanned image from AR-M550N


DEVICE NAME:
DEVICE MODEL: SHARP AR-M550N
LOCATION:

FILE FORMAT: PDF MMR(G4)
RESOLUTION: 300dpi x 300dpi

Attached file is scanned image in PDF format.
This file can be read by Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The reader can be downloaded from the following URL:

http://www.adobe.com/